NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK OF SAUDI ARABIA v.

COURT OF APPEALS
and PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION

437 SCRA 1 (2003), THIRD DIVISION

FACTS:

National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia (NCBSA) filed a case against

respondent Philippine Banking Corporation (PBC) to recover the duplicate
payment of the proceeds of a letter of credit issued by NCBSA in view of
the fact that both the head office and Makati branch of PBC collected the
proceeds.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati ruled in favor of NCBSA. PBC
filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The motion, however, did not contain a
notice of hearing. PBC tried to cure the defect by subsequently filing a
Motion to Set “Motion for Reconsideration” for Hearing nine days after the
period for filing the Notice of Appeal had expired which was vigorously
opposed by NCBSA.

NCBSA called for the strict application of the Philippines‘ rules of

procedure to prevent any more delay in the disposition of the case, which
has been pending for more than seventeen years. On the other hand, PBC
invokes a just and fair determination of the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the unrippled doctrine that a motion filed without the
requisite notice of hearing may be cured by subsequently filing a motion
to set “the motion” for hearing

HELD:

The requirement of notice under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 in connection

with Section 2, Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court is mandatory. The
absence of a notice of hearing is fatal and, in cases of motions to
reconsider a decision, the running of the period to appeal is not tolled by
their filing or pendency. In the case at bar, it is not disputed that PBC‘s
Motion for Reconsideration of the August 24, 1993 decision of the trial
court did not contain the requisite notice of hearing.
The motion for reconsideration, however, being fatally defective for lack
of notice of hearing, cannot be cured by a belated filing of a notice of
hearing. More so in the case at bar where the Motion to Set the “Motion
for Reconsideration” was filed after the expiration of the period for filing
an appeal.

PBC‘s appeal for justice and fairness does not lie, however, there being
nothing on record to show that it has been a victim of injustice or
unfairness. On the contrary, as found by the Court of Appeals in its
original decision, PBC had the opportunity to participate in the trial and
present its defense and had actually made full use of the remedies under
our rules of procedure. More importantly, there was no oppressive
exercise of judicial authority that would call for the annulment of the trial
court‘s resolutions.